I  Fallacies  of  Henry  George  | 

i;XFOSED  AND  REl-UTEl). 


THE 

TRUE  PHILOSOPHY 


I 


OF  THE 


LAND  QUESTION. 


By  REV.  EDW.  A.  HIGGINS,  S.  J. 

I'l  t  siilent  St.  Xavier  College,  Cincinnati. 


PRICE,  10  Cts. 


Address  all  Communications  to 

ST.  XAVIER  conkere^nce:, 

Box  167,  Cincinnati,  u. 


Fallacies  of  Henry  George 

EXPOSED  AND  REFUTED. 
THE 

TRUE  PHILOSOPHY 

  OF  THE   

LAND  QUESTION. 

By  REV.  EDW.  A.  HIGGINS,  S.  J. 

President  St.  Xavier  College,  Cincinnati. 


CINCINNATI : 
Press  of  Keating  &  Co.,  130  Walnut  Street. 
1887. 


A.  M.  D.  G, 


PREFACE. 

To  the  Members  of  the  St,  Xavier  Conference  : 

Gentlemen: — This  lecture  was  in  substance  prepared  during 
the  winter  as  one  in  a  course  of  post-graduate  lectures.  Since  then 
several  articles  have  appeared  in  the  magazines  and  periodicals 
covering  portions  of  the  same  ground,  and  an  active  propagandism 
has  been  carried  on  by  Mr.  George  and  his  followers,  keeping  up 
the  public  interest  in  the  question.  At  jour  request  and  under  jour 
auspices  I  delivered  it  in  the  Odeon,  the  daj  after  Mr.  George's 
chief  lieutenant  had  preached  the  "  New  Crusade  "  to  the  working- 
men  of  this  citj,  and  vou  have  since  asked  me  to  publish  it  as  a 
refutation  of  Mr.  George's  errors  on  the  ownership  of  land.  The 
opinion  so  generallj  expressed  bj  those  who  heard  the  lecture,  that 
the  argument  was  clear  and  easilj  followed,  leads  me  to  believe  that 
its  publication  maj  do  further  good,  bj  exposing  before  a  larger 
public,  Mr.  George's  fallacies,  and  establishing  the  true  basis  of 
ownership.  If  its  sale  enables  you  to  help  the  destitute  poor,  whom 
it  is  jour  privilege  to  assist,  I  shall  feel  happj  to  have  had  a  share 
in  jour  charitable  work.  I  send  jou  the  lecture  for  publication,  and 
subscribe  mjself.  Your  friend, 

EDW.  A.  HIGGINS,  S.J. 

St.  Xavier  College. 


Copyrighted  1887, 
By  Rev,  Edw.  A.  Htggins,  S.  J, 
Cincinnati. 


Ladies  and  Gentlemen : — 


There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  are  in  the  imme- 
diate presence  of  a  great  social  problem,  which 
every  year  becomes  more  urgent  and  more  clamorous 
for  solution.  Through  all  the  organs  of  public 
opinion  we  catch  the  ominous  mutterings  of  a  dis- 
contented multitude.  The  laboring  classes  are  all 
astir.  Sideb}^  side  with  the  movement  of  Socialism,, 
which  is  revolutionary  and  destructive,  which  aims 
at  the  forcible  reconstruction  of  society  and  the  forc- 
ible redistribution  of  wealth  by  the  State,  there  exists 
an  agitation,  serious  but  not  yet  violent — a  genuine 
labor  agitation,  quite  distinct  from  Socialism. 

The  working  classes  are  undoubtedly  discontented. 
They  have  grievances.  They  have  burdens  to  bear 
which  should  be  more  equally  shared  by  the  other 
and  more  fortunate  portion  of  the  community.  They 
do  not  ask  favors ;  they  demand  justice.  To  obtain 
redress  of  grievances,  and  to  remedy  abuses  which 
undoubtedly  exist,  they  are  combining  and  agitating. 
They  are  organizing,  as  they  have  a  right  to  do,  for 
co-operation,  for  self-protection,  for  the  enforcement 
of  their  rights.  What  shall  the  community  or  State  do 
in  answer  to  their  demands? 

THIS  IS  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  THE  DAY. 

How  it  presents  itself  in  the  United  States  is  thus 
described  by  our  American  social  agitator  and  re- 


4 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


former,  Mr.  Henry  George:  "The  same  social 
difficulties  [he  says]  apparent  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic,  are  beginning  to  appear  among  us. 
Only  the  shadow  of  power  belongs  to  the  people  ;  the 
substance  is  being  grasped,  and  wielded  by  the 
wealthy  speculators,  the  bandit  chiefs  of  the  stock  ex- 
change. In  any  matter  in  which  they  are  interested, 
the  little  finger  of  the  great  corporations  is  thicker 
than  the  loins  of  the  people  *  *  *  What  does  legal 
equality  amount  to  when  the  fortunes  of  some  citizens 
can  only  be  estimated  in  hundreds  of  millions,  whilst 
others,  just  as  good,  if  not  better,  have  nothing? 
Under  present  conditions  [Mr.  George  goes  on] 
material  progress  is  developing  two  diverse  tenden- 
cies, two  opposing  currents.  On  the  one  side  the 
tendency  of  increasing  population  and  of  all  im- 
provement in  the  arts  of  production,  is  to  build  up 
enormous  fortunes,  to  wipe  out  the  intermediate 
classes,  and  to  crowd  down  the  masses  to  a  dead 
level  of  lower  wages  and  greater  dependence.  On 
the  other  side,  by  bringing  men  closer  together,  by 
stimulating  thought,  by  creating  new  v\^ants,  by 
arousing  new  ambitions,  the  tendency  of  modern 
progress  is  to  make  the  masses  discontented  with 
their  condition,  and  to  feel  bitterlj-  its  injustice." 

The  lot  of  the  wage  workers  in  our  cities  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  precarious  and  wretched. 
Crowded  and  crushed  together  in  the  great  centers 
of  production,  they  are  forced  by  free  competition  in 
wages  to  accept  the  lowest ;  by  low  wages  the}'  are 
compelled  to  huddle  together  in  foul  tenement  houses  ; 
the  children  are  driven  into  factories  ;  women  and 
girls  wear  out  their  lives  over  machinery,  and,  withal. 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


5 


the  family  barely  keeps  its  head  above  starvation. 
"  If  w^ork  fails,  they  are  thrown  on  public  charity. 
How  long  will  this  be  borne?  The  masses  have 
come  to  know  their  strength.  Already  there  are 
signs  of  a  flood  which  may  soon  rise  to  fury." 
Should  there  not  be  a  more  just  division  of  profits,  a 
more  equal  distribution  of  wealth  ?  How  can  this  be 
accomplished  ? 

BEHOLD  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM. 

How  shall  it  be  solved?  Who  shall  devise  a 
remedy?  We  shall  put  aside  all  the  old  methods  of 
sociology  from  Plato  to  Adam  Smith,  all  the  recog- 
nized doctrines  of  political  economy  from  Aristotle  to 
Malthus,  which  undertake  to  deal  with  this  question, 
and  shall  confine  ourselves  at  present  to  the  theory 
proposed  by  Mr.  Henry  George.  This  social 
philosopher,  after  a  long  and  anxious  study  of  the 
question,  has  discovered  that  the  true  explanation  of 
the  great  poverty  and  misery  among  the  working 
classes,  the  true  reason  of  the  unequal  and  unfair 
distribution  of  wealth  is  to  be  found  in  the 

PRIVATE  OWNERSHIP  OF  LAND. 

Let  Mr.  George  state  the  case  himself:  "The 
wide-spreading  social  evils  which  everywhere  oppress 
men  amid  an  advancing  civilization,  spring  from  a 
great  primary  wrong,  the  appropriation,  as  the  ex- 
clusive property  of  some  men,  of  the  land  on  which 
and  from  which  all  must  live.  From  this  fundamental 
injustice  flow  all  the  injustices  which  distort  and 
endanger  modern  development,  which  condemn  the 
producer  of  wealth  to  poverty,  and  pamper  the  non- 


6 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


producer  in  luxury  ;  which  rear  the  tenement  house 
beside  the  palace,  plant  the  brothel  behind  the 
church,  and  compel  us  to  build  prisons  as  we  open 
new  schools/' 

If  this  theory  be  true,  if  individual  ownership  of 
land  be  the  original,  primeval  cause  of  poverty  and 
all  its  attendant  woes,  then  the  remed}'  is  as  plain  and 
simple  as  it  is  bold  and  direct. 

Let  all  private  ownership  of  land  be  abolished. 
As  the  land  was  originall}^  meant  for  all  the  people, 
let  it  be  given  back  to  the  people,  or,  rather,  to  the 
State,  which  is  the  agent  of  the  people.  For  the  use 
of  the  land  let  the  occupier  pay  rent  to  the  State  ;  this 
shall  be  the  one  only  tax  levied  by  the  State,  all 
others  must  be  abolished.  This  will  at  once  put  a 
stop  to  all  the  evils  of  landlordism  ;  to  all  the  abuses 
of  land-speculation.  It  will  throw  open  to  settlement 
and  cultivation  millions  upon  millions  of  acres  now 
held  unimproved  ;  it  will  give  a  home  and  means  of 
livelihood  to  a  great  multitude  at  a  merely  nominal 
rent. 

The  remedy  then  for  all  the  evils  of  poverty  is  to 

NATIONALIZE  THE  LAND  ; 

wipe  out  as  with  a  sponge  all  private  titles  to  land  in 
cguntr}^  or  city.  Make  the  land,  as  by  nature  it  was 
meant  to  be,  the  property  of  the  whole  community 
or  State.  To  confiscate  it  is  only  to  take  one's  own. 
To  compensate  land-owners  for  the  loss  of  their  land 
would  be  as  preposterous  as  to  compensate  thies^es  for 
the  restitution  of  their  spoil.  Perhaps  the  position  of 
Mr.  George  will  be  better  understood  from  the  words 
of  his  most  distinguished  follower : 


OF  THE  LAND  QUEvSTION. 


7 


WORDS  OF  DR.  MC  GLYNN. 

"  I  have  taught  [he  says]  and  I  shall  continue  to 
teach  as  long  as  I  live,  that  land  is  rightfully  the 
property  of  the  people  in  common  ;  and  that  private 
ownership  of  land  is  against  natural  justice,  no  mat- 
ter by  what  civil  or  ecclesiastical  laws  it  may  be 
sanctioned.  And  I  would  bring  about  instantly,  if  I 
could,  such  change  of  laws,  all  the  world  over,  as 
would  confiscate  private  property  in  land,  without  one 
penny  of  compensation  to  the  miscalled  owners:"  for 
[says  Mr.  George]  private  properly  m  la7id  zsYodderyy 
and  renl  exacted  by  landlords  is  theft. 

The  reasons  Mr.  George  offers  for  these  strong 
assertions  are  directed  to  prove  that  land  is  of  such  a 
a  nature  as  to  be  incapable  of  ever  rightfully  becoming 
private  property,  and  for  any  one  to  appropriate  land 
as  his  own  is  against  natural  justice.  This  is  the  issue 
I  propose  to  examine  : 

THE  JUSTICE  OR  INJUSTICE  OF  LANDED  PROPERTY. 

If  it  is  unjust,  then  restitution  should  be  made.  If 
it  is  just,  then  Mr.  George's  proposal  to  confiscate  it 
to  the  State  is  a  proposal  to  rob  one  class  for  the 
benefit  of  another.  By  this  test  (of  justice)  Mr. 
George  is  willing  to  stand  or  fall.  If  [he  says]  private 
property  in  land  be  just,  then  is  the  remedy  I  propose 
a  false  one  ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  private  property  in 
land  be  unjust,  then  is  the  remedy  a  true  one." 

Here,  then,  is  the  land  question,  as  a  question 
of  ethics  to  which  I  am  to  apply  the  principles  of 
philosophy.  I  will  examine  it  from  two  points  of 
view  ;   in  the  light  of  logic  I  will  inquire  into  the 


8 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


position  of  Henry  George,  whether  his  arguments  are 
sound,  his  premises  true,  his  reasoning  correct  and 
conclusive.  From  the  standpoint  of  ethics,  I  will 
consider  what  constitutes  the  primitive  and  original 
title  to  property  in  general,  and  to  landed  property  in 
particular.  I  propose  to  study  the  land  question  in 
its  first  principles,  not  under  the  guidance  of  Mr. 
George,  but  in  his  company  ;  and  if  I  can  not  admit 
his  principles,  I  will  endeavor  to  establish  the  true 
basis  of  ownership  springing  from  the  law  of  Man's 
nature,  and  recognized  by  the  laws  and  customs  of  all 
civilized  nations. 

STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

Let  me  put  the  question  before  you  in  its  simplest 
and  clearest  form.  There  are  many  issues  raised  by 
Mr.  Henry  George ;  there  are  many  momentous 
questions  involved  in  the  proposal  to  nationalize  the 
land  :  I  address  myself  to  the  one  central  and  supreme 
issue — the  justice  or  injustice  of  private  ownership  of 
land.  We  are  not  going  to  discuss  the  abuses  which 
have  arisen  from  the  power  tyrannically  exercised  by 
landlords  ;  we  are  not  inquiring  whether  it  is  harmful 
to  Society  for  one  person  or  for  a  corporation  to  hold 
immense  tracts  of  land  intended  for  the  wants  of  the 
whole  community  ;  whether  the  plan  of  taxing  the  land 
and  only  the  land  may  not  have  piany  advantages  ; 
nor  can  we  stop  to  analyze  that  ingenious  but  vision- 
ary speculation  which  Mr.  George  styles  the  "im- 
earned  increment  " — we  must  restrict  ourselves  to  the 
first  and  most  fundamental  question  of  all — Can  any 
man  rightfully  own  land  as.  his  own  exclusive  prop- 
erty?  If  he  can,  on  what  principle,  by  what  title 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


9 


If  he  cannot,  why  not?  We  are  to  go  back  then  to 
the  very  last  analysis  of  ownership. 

Land,  like  every  other  kind  of  property,  is  now 
held  by  a  variety  of  titles  ;  by  simple  purchase  or 
under  pre-emption  or  homestead  laws  ;  by  inheritance, 
prescription,  exchange,  barter,  donation  ;  all  of  which 
are  good,  provided  the  original  title  was  valid.  But 
our  inquiry  concerns  the  original  title  itself.  It  is 
this  that  Henry  George  finds  defective.  If  his  con- 
tention be  correct,  private  ownership  of  land  began 
in  robbery,  and  it  must  by  its  very  nature  always 
remain  robbery  and  injustice.  This  then  is  the  ques- 
tion : 

IS  THE  PRIVATE  OWNERSHIP  OF  LAND  UNJUST? 

Does  it  violate  the  natural  rights  of  others?  Henry 
George  holds  that  it  does — and  on  this  issue  he  stakes 
his  whole  theory  ;  by  this  simple  and  supreme  test  he 
is  willing  to  stand  or  fall.  He  argues  its  injustice 
with  force  and  eloquence ;  he  exhibits  it  under  every 
form  of  pleading,  of  illustration,  and  of  sentiment. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  subject  Mr.  George's  rea- 
soning to  a  logical  review,  and  in  doing  this  I  beg 
leave  to  say  that  I  am  willing  to  give  Mr.  George 
credit  for  all  the  unselfish  zeal  in  behalf  of  the  work- 
ing classes  which  his  friends  claim  for  him.  I  am  to 
deal,  not  with  his  motives  as  a  man,  but  with  his 
theories  and  argument  as  a  social  philosopher.  Our 
inquiry  shall  be  a  calm,  dispassionate  study,  with  the 
sole  purpose  of  ascertaining  and  vindicating  the  truth. 
In  what  regards  truth  and  justice  I  recognize  among 
my  fellow-citizens  no  distinction  of  class  or  party. 
The  principles  from  which  springs  ownership  in  land 


10 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


or  in  any  kind  of  property  concern  all  classes  alike.  In 
restricting  myself  to  the  one  main  issue  selected  as 
the  test  and  basis  of  his  whole  theory,  I  face  a 
question  not  of  political  economy,  but  of  simple, 
natural  justice.  Private  ownership  of  land  (says  Mr. 
George)  is  unjust,  is  nothing  but  robberj' ,  because 
there  is  not,  there  never  can  be,  a  valid  title  to  it. 
Why  not?  Let  Mr.  George  state  the  argument  in  his 
own  words.  I  quote  from  Progress  mid  Poverty^  Book 
VII.,  ch.  I  : 

What  constitutes  the  rightful  basis  of  property? 
What  is  it  that  enables  a  man  to  justly  say  of  a  thing, 
'  It  is  mine  I'  From  what  springs  the  sentiment  which 
acknowledges  his  exclusive  right  as  against  all  the 
world?  Is  it  not  primarily  the  right  of  a  man  to  him- 
self, to  the  use  of  his  own  powers,  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the  fruits  of  his  own  exertions?  *  *  *  As  a 
man  belongs  to  himself,  so  his  labor,  when  put  in 
concrete  form,  belongs  to  him.    -^^    *  * 

And  for  this  reason,  that  which  a  man  makes  or 
produces  is  his  own,  as  against  all  the  world — rto 
enjoy  or  to  destroy,  to  use,  to  exchange  or  to  give 
*  *  *  This  is  not  only  the  original  source  from 
which  all  ideas  of  exclusive  ownership  arise  *  * 
but  it  is  necessarily  the  only  source.  There  can  be 
to  the  ownership  of  anything  no  rightful  title  which 
is  not  derived  from  the  title  of  the  producer.  *  *  * 
As  nature  gives  only  to  labor,  the  exertion  of  labor 
in  production  is  the  only  title  to  exclusive  possession." 
Now  land  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  product  of  labor — 
it  is  a  gift  of  nature,  meant  for  all  men  ;  and  for  one 
man  to  appropriate  it  is  to  rob  the  others  of  that  to 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION.  11 

which  all  have  an  equal  right.  "For  all  have  a 
natural  and  inalienable  right  to  live  by  the  land.'' 

To  this  I  answer,  first,  if  this  argument  proved 
anything,  it  would  prove  too  much  ;  it  would  prove 
that  land  can  no  more  belong  to  a  community  or  State, 
than  it  can  to  an  individual,  for  the  land  is  no  more 
the  product  of  the  community's  labor,  than  it  is  of  the 
individual's  toil.  But 

THE  WHOLE  ARGUMENT  IS  UNSOUND  AND  ILLOGICAL. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  original  and  exclusive  source 
of  private  ownership  is  the  labor  of  production,  or  that 
labor  which  makes  or  produces  a  thing.  Nature,  we 
are  told,  gives  only  to  labor.  Not  true.  Nature  minis- 
ters to  man's  necessities,  to  his  comfort,  his  pleasure, 
his  enjoyment — sometimes  with,  and  sometimes  with- 
out, labor  ;  but  even  granting  that  Nature  does  give  to 
labor^  what  kind  of  logic  is  it  which  concludes, 
"therefore  the  labor  of  -production  is  the  07'iginal  and 
exclusive  title  to  private  ownership, ''  thus  putting  a 
clause  in  the  conclusion  that  is  not  in  the  premises  ? 

"  Man  has  a  right  to  himself:  therefore  the  labor 
which  makes  or  produces  a  thing  is  the  original  and 
exclusive  title  to  ownership. ''  What  kind  of  reason- 
ing is  this?  Let  us  even  concede  the  antecedent — 
which,  however,  is  not  true  in  Mr.  George's  sense — 
what  connection  is  there  between  this  proposition  and 
the  conclusion? 

The  truth  is  that  the  producing  or  making  of  a 
thing  is  neither  the  original  nor  the  exclusive  source 
of  private  ownership.  That  which  you  make  or  pro- 
duce is  yours,  provided  the  materials  out  of  which 
you  produce  it  are  yours.    If  the  materials  are  not 


12 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


yours,  no  amount  of  labor  can  make  the  product 
yours.  The  pen  which  you  have  made  from  the 
little  nugget  of  gold  is  justly  yours,  if  the  gold  was 
your  property.  The  house  which  you  have  built  is 
justly  yours,  if  the  materials  belonged  to  you.  Should 
a  thief  take  a  bar  of  gold  which  belongs  to  another, 
and  melt  it  and  run  it  into  coin,  no  honest  man  will 
say  that  his  skill  and  toil  give  him  a  just  title  to  the 
product  of  his  labor.  Neither  the  house  you  live  in, 
nor  the  clothes  you  wear,  nor  the  food  that  nourishes 
you,  nor  the  fire  that  warms  you,  can  ever  become 
your  property,  if  the  materials  can  never  be  justly 
yours.  Now,  on  Mr.  George^s  principle,  they  never 
can  become  yours  by  a  just  title.  For,  the  original 
and  exclusive  title  to  property,  he  says,  is  the  making 
or  producing  of  a  thing,  and  you  have  not  made  the 
materials.  Admit  this  principle,  then,  and  there  is 
an  end  of  all  private  ownership,  and  Proudhon  was 
right  when  he  declared  that  all  property  is  theft. 

There  must  therefore  be  some  source  or  title 
to  ownership  antecedent  to  the  labor  of  production. 
You  can  not  begin  to  make  or  produce  until  you 
have  the  materials.  Now,  by  what  title  do  you 
take  as  your  own  and  use  the  materials?  When  we 
have  accompanied  Mr.  George  to  what  he  calls  the 
original  and  only  source  of  private  ownership,  we 
discover  that  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  origin  or 
source  of  individual  property  ;  but  have  to  journey 
still  farther  back  and  inquire  into  the  right  and  title 
by  which,  in  the  beginning,  man  could  make  the 
material  gifts  of  nature  his  own.  In  that  right,  if 
such  a  right  exist,  we  shall  discover  the  original  and 
ultimate  source  of  private  ownership.    To  make  the 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


13 


inquiry  thorough,  let  us  ask,  what  is  there  in  the 
nature  of  man  and  in  his  environment  that  makes  him 
capable  of  possessing  anything  as  his  property,  that 
is,  as  exclusively  his  own?  To  give  a  clear  and  con- 
clusive answer  to  this  question,  we  must  first  define 

WHAT  THE  RIGHT  OF  PROPERTY  MEANS, 

and  what  constitutes  ownership, 

A  right  in  general,  is  a  moral  power  to  do,  or 
require,  to  command  or  forbid  something,  implying  a 
corresponding  duty  or  obligation  on  the  part  of  others 
to  allow  the  exercise  of  that  power. 

The  right  of  property  or  ownership  is,  ''The 
moral  power  or  faculty  of  claiming  an  object  as  one's 
own,  and  disposing  both  of  the  object  and  its  utility 
according  to  one's  own  good  will,  without  any  right- 
ful interference  on  the  part  of  others."  *  *  * 

Being  a  moral  power  or  faculty  it  can  belong  only 
to  a  rational  or  intelligent  being.  But  what  is  there 
in  man's  nature  as  a  rational  being  that  gives  him  a 
moral  power  or  faculty  to  claim  a  thing  as  his 
own,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others?  Mr.  George 
answers,  ''it  is  man's  right  to  himself."  But  mark 
the  consistency  of  this  social  philosopher.  He  has 
just  laid  down  the  principle  that  the  making  or  pro- 
ducing of  a  thing  is  the  original  and  only  source  of 
exclusive  ownership.  On  this  principle  we  should 
say,  therefore, 

MAN  HAS  NO  RIGHT  TO  HIMSELF. 

He  does  not  belong  to  himself;  he  does  not  own 
his  faculties,  and  therefore  has  no  title  to  the  fruit  of 
his  own  exertion,  for  it  is  self-evident  that  he  has  not 


14 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


made  or  produced  himself.  Yet  it  is  upon  this  prin- 
ciple of  man's  right  to  himself,  which  Mr.  George 
has  blindly  copied  from  Herbert  Spencer — on  this  he 
builds  his  whole  theory. 

What  is  there  then  in  man's  nature  and  environ- 
ment that  originates  the  moral  power,  or  right,  to 
claim  a  thing  as  his  own?  First,  man  is  the  head  and 
crowning  glory  of  this  world  of  ours,  of  this  splendid 
terrestrial  hierarchy  which  includes  all  forms  of  being^ 
and  of  life  on  the  earth.  Man  alone,  by  his  intelli- 
gence, knows  the  purpose  of  the  Creator,  and  the 
proper  use  of  creatures.  By  reason  of  his  dignity  as 
a  rational  being,  man  is  to  all  creatures  below  him  as 
the  end  towards  which  they  are  directed,  and  for 
which  they  were  made.  For  this  reason,  as  in  keep- 
ing with  man's  nature,  God  gave  him  dominion  over 
the  whole  earth,  the  land  and  sea,  and  all  the 
treasures  therein.  Even  Aristotle,  without  the  light 
of  revelation,  could  see  in  man's  rational  nature  the 
end  for  which  all  things  else  existed.  They  are  all 
for  man,  for  his  use,  for  his  needs,  for  his  profit,  for 
his  enjoyment.  On  the  other  hand,  man  needs  the 
creatures  around  him  for  self-preservation  and  the 
support  of  his  life.  The  necessity  which  nature  has 
thus  imposed  upon  him,  the  duty  of  self-preservation^ 
which  he  owes  his  Creator,  gives  him  the  right  to 
take,  possess  and  use  the  good  things  which  boun- 
teous nature  has  provided  for  him.  More  than  this: 
Since  man  is  a  rational  and  moral  personality,  every 
human  being  is,  as  man,  on  a  footing  of  perfect 
independence  of  every  one  else.  This  is  a  necessary 
corollary  of  man's  dignity  as  a  person.  Not  only  are 
all  equal  as  men — equal  in  their  specific  nature,  but 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


15 


each  as  man  is  independent  of  every  other.  By 
reason  of  this  personal  independence,  whatever  a  man 
needs  for  the  support  and  preservation  of  life  he  has 
a  right  to  take,  possess  and  use,  to  the  exclusion  of 
others.  Now  in  this  consists  the  right  of  ownership, 
namely  so  to  .  possess,  hold  and  use  a  thing  as  to 
exclude  others  from  it.  This  is  an  important  con- 
sideration. 

There  is  not,  there  never  can  be,  true  ownership 
without  the  right  of  excluding  others  from  the  thing 
possessed  and  owned.  That  only  can  be  called  one's 
own  which  does  not  belong  to  others,  but  excludes 
them.  Should  the  object  used  be  of  such  a  nature 
that  its  use  by  one  will  not  preclude  its  use  at  the 
same  time  by  another,  then  it  is  not  capable  of  be- 
coming the  exclusive  property  of  any  one.  if  it  can 
be  possessed  and  turned  to  use  by  everyone,  without 
limiting  or  restricting  its  possession  and  use  by 
others,  it  is  by  its  very  nature  removed  from  the 
category  of  property.  It  can  not  be  owned.  Its 
nature  is  to  escape  all  bounds  of  ownership.  This  is 
the  reason  why  the  air  we  breath  and  the  light  of  the 
sun  can  never  become  personal,  individual  property. 
It  is  not  because,  as  Mr.  George  asserts,  they  are  so 
necessary  for  all  men — food  and  drink,  and  clothing, 
and  fuel  are  also  necessary  for  all  men — but  it  is  be- 
cause light  and  air  are  of  such  a  nature  that  their  use 
by  one  does  not  exclude  their  simultaneous  use  by 
another.  And  this  is  the  answer  to  Mr.  George's 
fallacy,  so  often  and  so  eloquently  repeated. 

"  Land,"  he  tells  us  again  and  again,  *'land,  like 
light  and  air,  is  the  gift  of  our  Common  Father ;  all 
men  have  equal  rights  to  their  Father's  bounty.  The 


16 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


land  is  as  necessary  for  man's  subsistence  as  the  light 
and  air  from  heaven."  All  very  true,  but  not  to  the 
point.  They  are  all  necessary ;  they  are  all  the  gift 
of  our  Common  Father,  and  so  are  all  the  treasures 
of  the  land  and  of  the  sea.  But  the  difference  lies  in 
this :  the  land  is  by  its  nature  capable  of  being 
possessed  and  used  by  some  to  the  exclusion  of  oth- 
ers ;  light  and  air  are  not  capable  of  being  thus  ex- 
clusively possessed  and  used  ;  and  therefore  the  first 
can  become  property,  and  the  others  cannot. 
I  have  now,  I  think,  made  clear 

THE  ORIGIN  OR  SOURCE  OF  PROPERTY. 

It  is  to  be  found,  in  its  last  analysis,  in  man's  right 
of  self-preservation,  his  need  of  Nature's  gifts  for  the 
support  of  his  life,  and  therefore  his  right  to  take, 
use  and  consume  them  ;  and  finally  in  his  personal, 
individual  independence,  which  gives  him  the  moral 
power  or  faculty  of  so  possessing  and  using  w^hat  he 
needs  as  to  exclude  others.  Briefly,  the  origin  or  source 
of  ownership  is  a  man^s  right  to  life,  and  therefore  to 
the  necessaries  of  life.  The  first  means  by  which 
man  began  to  exercise  his  right  to  live,  the  first  act 
by  which  he  became  an  owner,  a  holder  of  property, 
was  the  act  of  occupation — that  is,  the  taking  posses- 
sion of  a  thing  by  the  exercise  of  his  physical  activity 
and  bodily  faculties  with  the  intention  of  making  it 
his  own.  Remember,  we  have  now  gone  back  to  the 
beginning,  before  any  government  or  any  State  ex- 
isted. We  are  witnessing  the  birth  of  a  community 
in  the  life  struggles  of  its  first  members.  How  can 
this  man  provide  himself  with  the  necessaries  of  life, 
with  food  and  clothing,  except  by  appropriating  the 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


17 


gifts  of  nature,  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  the  fishes  of 
the  sea,  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  beasts  of  the  field,  or 
the  plot  of  ground  from  which,  by  labor,  to  derive  his 
sustenance? 

The  man  who  first  gathered  fruit  from  a  tree,  found 
a  wild  fowl's  nest,  or  snared  the  wild  fowl  itself,  or 
trapped  a  wild  beast,  or  took  a  fish  from  a  stream, 
then  and  there  gave  rise  to  rightful  ownership.  He 
did  not  make  or  produce  the  things  he  then  began  to 
possess  ;  he  appropriated  them,  and  whatsoever  by 
natural  increase  or  by  his  skill  and  labor  resulted  from 
them  became  his  property. 

Mr.  Henry  George  scouts  the  idea  of  ownership 
originating  in  appropriation.  ''It  is  sometimes 
claimed  [he  says,  p.  49,  Prof,  in  Land^  that  property 
in  land  is  derived  from  appropriation.  But  those  who 
say  this  do  not  really  mean  it.  Appropriation  can 
give  no  right.  The  man  who  raises  a  cupful  of 
water  from  a  river  acquires  a  right  to  that  cupful  and 
no  one  can  rightfully  snatch  it  from  his  hand.  But 
this  right  is  derived  from  labor,  not  from  appropria- 
tion. How  could  he  acquire  a  right  to  the  river  by 
merely  appropriating  it  ?  *  *  *  If  there  were 
but  two  men  in  the  world,  the  fish  which  either  of  them 
took  from  the  sea,  the  fruit  which  he  gathered,  or  the 
hut  which  he  erected,  would  be  his  rightful  property, 
which  the  other  could  not  take  from  him.  But  how 
could  either  of  them  claim  the  world  as  his  rightful 
property  by  merely  appropriating  it?  Or  if  they 
agreed  to  divide  the  world  between  them,  what  moral 
right  could  their  compact  give,  as  against  the  next 
man  who  came  into  the  world." 


18 


THE  PHILOI-^OPHY 


This  is  a  good  specimen  of 

MR.  George's  fallacious  reasoning. 

Who  has  ever  claimed  for  anyone  the  right  of 
arbitrarily  appropriating  the  world  or  the  rivers? 
Appropriation  is  not  a  title  ;  it  is  an  act  by  which  a 
man  exercises  his  right  to  provide  for  his  needs.  We 
ask  whence  comes  this  man's  right  to  take  or  ap- 
propriate to  himself  the  cupful  of  water,  the  fish,  or 
the  materials  of  the  hut  he  has  built?  Mr.  George  de- 
rives it  from  labor.  But,  first,  it  is  certainly  not  the 
labor  of  production  which  we  have  just  been  told  is 
the  original  and  exclusive  source  of  ownership;  and, 
secondly,  no  amount  of  labor  can  make  a  thing  yours 
unless  you  have  a  right  to  take  and  use  the  materials. 
Whence,  then,  comes  your  right  to  these  material 
things  provided  for  you  •by  Nature?  I  answer,  it 
comes  from  your  right  to  life,  and  therefore  to  all  the 
necessaries  of  life.  Appropriation  Mr.  George  will 
not  listen  to,  because  by  some  freak  of  his  im- 
agination he  takes  appropriation  to  mean  arbitrarily 
claiming  the  whole  world,  or  its  rivers,  or  the  right 
to  divide  the  world  between  two  persons.  What  we 
claim  for  any  man  is  the  right  of  holding,  as  his  own, 
the  material  object,  bird  or  beast,  not  yet  belonging 
to  another,  which  he  takes  for  his  own  use  ;  or  the 
plot  of  land  not  yet  appropriated,  which  he  occupies 
and  cultivates,  on  which  he  builds  his  house  with  the 
materials  which  he  appropriates  from  the  land.  The 
question  of  how  much  land  one  man  may  occupy  and 
claim  as  his  own,  is  quite  another  question  with  which 
we  are  not  now  dealing.  I  know  that  man's  right  to 
appropriate  is  a  limited  right.    It  is  limited  by  its 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


19 


origin  and  nature,  for  it  is  based  upon  his  needs,  not 
his  avarice.  Man,  it  is  true,  is  independent,  but  he 
is  not  isolated ;  much  less  is  he  at  war  with  his 
fellows.  He  is  destined  for  Society,  to  live  with 
others  who  have  the  same  rights  as  he.  The  limits  of 
his  possession  are  to  be  defined  not  so  much  by  his 
wishes  as  by  his  wants  and  the  wants  of  others.  And 
therefore  it  is  that  w^hen  men  come  together  and  a 
community  is  formed,  the  actual  division  of  land  is 
eflfected  by  mutual  agreement  and  is  protected, 
regulated  and  controlled  by  civil  law. 

We  are  not  concerned  now  about  the  quantity  ; 
the  question  is,  can  a  man  by  his  own  exertion  take 
and  hold  for  his  own  use,  and  make  his  own  by  his 
labor,  by  the  skill  and  industry  he  expends  upon  it, 
the  piece  of  ground,  belonging  to  no  one,  from  which 
he  hopes  to  derive  the  means  of  subsistence?  To 
this  question  Mr.  George  answers  by  rhetorical  clap- 
trap about  arbitrarily  appropriating  a  whole  river  or 
the  whole  world. 

Here,  then,  is  the 

SPECIAL  QUESTION  OF  PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 

In  what  respect  does  landed  property  differ  from 
any  other  species  of  property?  Not,  as  Mr.  George 
would  have  us  believe,  because  land  is  a  gift  of  God, 
whilst  all  other  kinds  of  property  are  the  fruits  of 
human  exertion.  Every  species  of  property  is  ulti- 
mately as  purely  a  gift  of  God  as  the  land.  The 
food  that  nourishes  life,  the  clothes  we  wear,  the  fuel 
we  burn,  the  metals  w^e  forge  into  instruments  of  art 
and  industry,  the  money  we  use,  are  all  from  the 
bounty  of  God.    Is  it  only  the  bare  earth  that  comes 


20 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


from  the  hands  of  our  heavenly  Father?  Is  not  the 
seed  His,  and  His  the  rain  and  the  sunshine  that 
ripen  the  grain,  and  the  substances  in  the  earth  that 
are  transformed  into  the  pith  and  fibre  of  tree  and 
herb,  of  fruit  and  flower?  and  the  treasures  buried  in 
the  earth,  are  they  not  his?  What  Mr.  George  fails  to 
perceive  is  that  all  things  that  constitute  the  materials 
of  property  are  equally  the  gift  of  the  Creator.  In 
this  respect  moveable  wealth  and  immoveable  stand 
on  precisely  the  same  footing. 

Here  Mr.  George  has  been  misled  by  John  Stuart 
Mill.  ''The  land,"  says  Mill,  ''is  not  of  man's 
creation,  and  for  a  person  to  appropriate  to  himself  a 
mere  gift  of  nature  not  made  to  him  in  particular, 
but  which  belonged  to  all  others  until  he  took  posses- 
sion of  it,  is  prima  facie  an  injustice  to  all  the  rest." 

But  what  is  of  man's  creation?  In  every  case  he 
finds  his  materials  already  created,  and  he  merely 
appropriates  them,  and  adapts  them  to  his  own  uses 
by  labor,  exactly  as  he  does  with  the  soil  that  in  his 
hands  becomes  fertile  fields.  So  far  as  creation  is 
concerned,  a  farm  or  a  garden  is  as  much  a  creation 
of  man  as  anything  else  is,  and  everything  is  as  much 
a  gift  of  God  as  land.  That  distinction  therefore  is 
futile.  There  is,  however,  a  distinction  between  land 
and  perishable  objects  which  are  consumed  by  use. 
We  have  already  seen  by  what  title  and  on  what 
principle  these  can  be  taken  possession  of,  owned,  and 
used  to  the  exclusion  of  others. 

Now  we  are  to  inquire  by  what  title  one  can  hold 
as  his  own  private  property,  the  piece  of  land  which 
he  has  brought  under  cultivation.  Is  he  allowed 
only  the  use  of  it?  Must  he  relinquish  all  claim  to  it, 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


21 


and  give  it  up  as  soon  as  he  has  reaped  what  he 
sowed?  He  has  changed  it  from  the  state  of  raw 
material,  made  it  productive,  drained  it,  fertihzed  it; 
with  his  own  hands  he  has  cleared  it,  felling  the  trees, 
and  building  on  it  a  shelter  for  his  family.  He  has 
made  it'  a  farm  ;  every  rod  of  it  bears  the  impress  oi 
his  labor.  He  has  caused  it  to  be  fruitful ;  every 
crop  tells  of  his  untiring  industry  ;  he  has  spent  on  it 
his  time,  the  skill,  the  labor  of  mind  and  body  ;  and 
shall  he  not  hold  it  as  his  own?  Who  has  a  better  or 
prior  right  to  it?  No  one.  The  community?  There 
is  no  community :  it  has  not  yet  been  formed.  He  is 
one  of  those  by  whom  the  primitive  community  is  to  be 
founded.  There  was  therefore  no  prior  owner.  Shall 
he-hold  it  only  till  some  one  else  comes  to  claim  it? 
If  he  is  justified  in  excluding  others,  and  if  the  com- 
mon consent  of  mankind  confirms  him  in  this  ex- 
clusive ownership,  surely  there  must  be  some  principle 
which  gives  him  a  right  to  permanent  possession  of  it 
as  his  own.  What  is  that  principle?  I  answer  that 
the  right  to  permanent  ownership  of  land  rests 
primarily  on  the  same  basis  as  the  right  of  ownership 
in  perishable  goods,  viz.  :  the  right  to  live,  the 
right  of  self-preservation,  and  the  right  (by  virtue  of 
personal  independence)  to  exclude  others  from  what  is 
necessary  for  us.  The  right  to  provide  for  one's  life 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  most  generous  sense.  Man  is 
gifted  with  intelligence  and  foresight.  He  does  not 
0  live,  like  the  brute  beast,  at  haphazard,  from  day  to 
deiy,  seeking  his  prey  b}^  instinct :  he  lives  in  the 
future  as  well  as  in  the  present,  and  it  is  his  duty  to 
provide  for  the  future  ;  not  only  for  his  own  future  but 


22 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


for  that  of  his  family  ;  for  the  origin  of  property  goes 
back  to  the  origin  of  the  family. 

More  than  this.  He  has  a  right,  as  a  rational 
being  destined  for  Society,  to  provide  for  his  rational, 
intellectual  life,  to  provide  for  the  education  of  his 
children,  to  provide  for  the  social  and  religious  life 
of  his  family.  Having  such  large  rights  as  these — 
and  who  can  deny  that  man  has  them? — he  must  have 
the  right  to  procure  the  means  of  exercising  them  ; 
the  means  of  providing,  as  far  as  in  him  lies,  for  the 
permanent  support  of  that  complex  life,  which  belongs 
to  him  as  an  individual,  as  the  head  of  a  family,  as  a 
member  of  human  society. 

Now,  reason  pointed  out  from  the  beginning  that 
Nature  had  provided  no  better  or  fitter  means .  of 
permanent  support  than  the  cultivation  of  the  soil. 
For  this  purpose  the  husbandman  took  possession  of 
a  portion  of  the  land,  tilled  it,  made  it  productive,  and 
by  these  very  acts  of  his  became  the  owner  of  the 
land  he  cultivated,  and  of  the  whole  fruit  of  his  labor. 

BEHOLD  THE  ORIGIN  OR  GENESIS  OF  LANDED  PROPERTY. 

The  land  was  needed  by  men ;  it  was  intended 
for  men  ;  and  now  this  individual  man  has  established 
a  claim  to  this  portion  of  the  land,  which  no  one  else 
can  justly  assail.  For  every  man  has  a  full  right  to 
the  fruit  of  his  skill  and  toil.  The  fruit  of  his  personal 
labor  is  his  own.  Not  because,  as  Henry  George 
erroneously  puts  it,  he  owns  himself,  for  he  does  not ; 
not  because  he  has  a  right  to  himself,  but  because  he 
has  a  right  to  preserve  the  life  his  Creator  gave  him. 
That  life  is  a  free  gift  of  God  ;  once  that  it  is  his,  he 
has  a  right  to  it  against  all  the  world.    As  a  human 


OF  THK  LAND  QUESTION. 


23 


life — as  the  life  of  a  human  personality — it  is  inde- 
pendent of  other  men,  and  therefore  his  labor  right- 
fully belongs  to  himself  alone. 

No  man  can  be  consti^ained  to  work  for  another. 
Whosoever  gives  his  labor  to  another  is  justly  entitled 
to  compensation  for  it.  His  labor  is  himself;  it  is  his 
own  human  personality,  expressed  in  external  action. 
It  is  his  manhood  translated  into  material  terms. 
His  labor  is  the  exercise  of  all  his  faculties,  of  his 
mind,  his  senses,  his  brain,  his  whole  body  ;  it  is  the 
expression  of  his  whole  being  ;  his  work  is  the  out- 
going of  his  individuality  into  the  sensible  objects  on 
which  he  spends  himself.  These  material  things  are 
thus  stamped  with  the  sign  and  seal  of  man's  per- 
sonality ;  and  by  that  very  fact,  in  the  very  nature  of 
things,  they  cling  to  him  and  belong  to  him  by  an 
exclusive  right.  They  belong  to  him  thus  exclusiveh^ 
until  by  his  own  free  act  he  cancels  the  seal  which 
marks  them  as  his,  and  transfers  them  to  the  dominion 
of  another.  The  gold  that  is  found  by  man's  in- 
genuity, the  coal  that  is  freed  from  the  clutches  of 
the  earth,  the  marble  cut  from  the  quarry,  the  hillside 
that  is  cleared  and  prepared  for  the  vine,  the  field  that 
is  broken  and  made  to  yield  its  harvest,  all  these  bear 
upon  them,  distinct  as  a  clear-cut  seal,  the  mark  of 
the  toiler's  personality.  The  land  especially  bears 
the  stamp  of  the  cultivator's  individuality.  x\s  mere 
land,  as  the  mere  raw  material  given  to  man  to  be 
cultivated,  it  is  precisely  on  the  same  footing  as  the 
other  crude  materials  which  man  must  use  to  make 
anything  he  needs.  If  he  can  claim  the  pen  he  has 
made  out  of  the  raw  material,  because  as  a  pen  it  is 
the  product  of  his  labor,  much  more  can  he  claim  the 


24 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


farm  or  garden  as  his  own  ;  because,  inasmuch  as  his 
continuous  labor  has  transformed  the  raw  material  of 
loams  and  clays,  of  sand,  or  marsh  into  a  farm  or 
garden,  it  is  pre-eminently  the  product  of  his  toil.  He 
has  put  into  it  his  time,  his  patience,  his  hopes,  his 
ambitions,  his  anxieties  ;  he  has  watered  it  with  his 
sweat.  He  has  made  it  a  part  of  himself.  He  has 
established  between  it  and  himself  a  bond  of  relation- 
ship, a  connecting  tie  which  attaches  it  to  him  as  to 
no  one  else — to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 

THIS  IS  OWNERSHIP. 

This  is  what  makes  the  land  his  property  ;  his 
against  all  the  world.  It  became  his  to  hold  and  use, 
by  reason  of  his  needs  ;  it  is  his  to  own,  by  reason  of 
his  labor.  This  is  the  source  and  title  of  private 
ownership  of  land. 

Here  are  the  true  rights  of  labor,  which  the  whole 
human  race  has  acknowledged  and  acted  upon.  In 
this  plot  of  ground  is  the  fruit  of  man's  toil  in  con- 
crete, tangible  form,  and  the  judgment  of  the  civil- 
ized world  proclaims  his  inalienable  right  to  it.  There 
is  no  cultivated  land  which  is  not  the  product  of  man's 
exertion.  Yet  his  right  to  it  is  denied — by  whom?  By 
Henry  George,  the  friend  of  labor.  On  what  ground 
does  he  deny  the  farmer^s  right  to  the  land  his  labor 
has  redeemed  from  the  wilderness  and  his  sweat  made 
fruitful?  On  the  ground  of  a  theory,  built  on  an 
equivocation,  as  I  shall  presently  show  you. 

Mr.  George  recognizes  property  in  improvements, 
but  not  in  the  land  improved.  When  the  improve- 
ments become  indistinguishable  from  the  land  by 
long-continued  and  multiplied  labor^  then  the  fruit  of 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


25 


labor  must  be  sacrificed;  "for,"  says  Mr.  George, 
the  title  to  the  improvements  becomes  blended  with 
the  title  to  the  land  :  the  individual  right  is  lost  in  the 
common  right." 

On  the  one  hand  he  lays  down  the  principle  that 
man  has  a  right  to  the  product  of  his  own  industry. 
Yet  when  that  product  is  identified  with  the  land,  so 
as  to  be  indistinguishable  from  it,  he  denies  the  right 
either  to  the  product  or  to  compensation  for  it.  The 
more  labor  you  expend  upon  the  land  the  less  right 
you  have  to  the  fruit  of  your  toil.  Can  Mr.  George 
be  the  laborer's  friend  when  he  tells  him  that  all  his 
toil  must  count  for  nothing,  because  it  has  become 
identified  with  the  land? 

Why,  it  is  against  this  iniquitous  principle  that  the 
wretched  peasantry  of  Ireland  have  been  fighting  for 
their  lives,  as  against  the  heaviest  of  their  grievances. 
This  very  principle  of  Henry  George  has  been  all 
along  the  gospel  of  the  alien  landlords  of  Ireland, 
who  took  advantage  of  the  labor  and  sweat  of  the 
half-starved  tenant,  raised  the  rent  by  reason  of  the 
tenant's  improvement,  and,  if  he  could  not  pay  this 
rack-rent,  turned  him  out  without  a  penny  of  com- 
pensation, because  the  improvement  was  identified 
with  the  land.  And  how  does  Mr.  George  justify 
this  right  to  confiscate  the  product  of  the  workman's 
labor?  On  the  principle  that  "  the  individual  right  is 
lost  in  the  common  right." 

But  what  IS  the  common  right  which  thus  robs  the 
individual  of  that  fruit  of  his  exertion  which  Mr. 
George  elsewhere  declares  to  be  his  as  against  all  the 
world?  '^The  land  [he  says]  belongs  to  all  men  in 
common.  ^       ^        It  is  the  gift  of  the 


26 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


Creator  to  all  men.  There  is  in  nature  no  such  thing  as 
a  fee  simple  in  land.  There  is  on  earth  no  power 
which  can  rightfully  make  a  grant  of  exclusive  own- 
ership in  land.  ^  ^  The  equal  right 
of  all  men  to  the  use  of  land  is  as  clear  as  their  equal 
right  to  breathe  the  air.  It  is  a  right  proclaimed  by 
the  fact  of  their  existence.  The  land  is  equally  nec- 
essary for  all :  therefore  all  have  an  equal  right  to  it.'' 
Here  is 

ANOTHER  SPECIMEN  OF  xMR.  GEORGE's  SOPHISTICAL 
REASONING. 

Every  sentence  in  the  paragraph  is  a  fallacy. 
There  is  in  nature  [he  says]  no  such  thing  as  a  fee 
simple  in  land.''  I  add  there  is  in  nature  no  such 
thing  as  a  fee  simple  in  anything.  A  fee  simple  is 
not  derived  from  nature,  but  is  acquired  only  by  the 
exercise  of  man's  faculties,  and  is  the  result  of  his 
industry,  the  fruit  of  his  exertions.  Put  the  argu- 
ment of  Mr.  George  in  this  form  and  see  to  what  it 
leads. 

Nature  has  given  no  fee  simple  in  any  kind  of 
property  ;  therefore  no  power  on  earth  can  sanction 
or  grant  the  exclusive  ownership  of  any  kind  of 
property. 

WHAT  IS  THIS  BUT  PURE  COMMUNISM? 

And  all  this  arises  from  Mr.  George's  inabilit}'  to 
distinguish  the  true  sense  in  which  the  land  is  given 
to  all  men  in  common  from  the  erroneous  sense  which 
leads  to  Communism.  Let  us  establish  this  true  sense 
and  put  an  end  to  Mr.  George's  equivocation.  Nature 
has  given  not  the  land  onl}^  but  aU  the  treasures  of 


OF  THP:  l.AND  (QUESTION. 


27 


land  and  sea,  to  all  men  in  common  ;  that  is,  to  the 
whole  human  race,  to  supply  the  wants  of  alK  but 
without  determining  how  the  gifts  of  her  bounty 
should  be  held  and  possessed.  The  expression  "  in 
common  "  rnay  be  understood  in  two  ways.  It  may 
be  taken  in  a  negative  sense  as  meaning  that  Nature 
made  no  division,  did  not  directly  give  anything  to 
any  individual  as  his  exclusive  property  ;  that  she  be- 
stowed no  object  in  particalar  on  anyone,  but  gave  all 
things  in  general  for  the  use  of  all.  In  this  sense  it 
is  true. 

But  what  kind  of  right  springs  from  this  gift  of 
Nature  to  all  men  "  in  common?"  It  is  an  abstract 
right,  a  general  right  which  merely  signilies  that 
ever3^one  has  a  moral  power  or  right  to  become  an 
owner,  and  will  find  in  nature  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence as  the  reward  of  his  industry.  But  the  individuaPs 
right  to  anything  in  the  concrete  must  be  established 
by  his  own  positive  acts.  This,  however,  is  not  the 
sense  in  which  Mr.  George  takes  it ;  that  meaning 
would  not  serve  his  purpose.  He  wishes  us  to  under- 
stand that  every  human  being  that  comes  into  the 
world  at  anytime,  has  an  actual,  positive  right  to  a 
share  in  every  foot  of  land  in  the  world ;  that  he 
enjoys  a  real,  positive  though  partial  ownership  of  the 
whole  soil  of  the  earth  ;  and  is  robbed  if  this  is  denied 
him. 

"  The  puniest  infant  born  in  a  tenement  house 
[he  says]  becomes  at  that  moment  seized  of  an  equal 
right  with  the  heir  of  the  Astors  "  to  the  broad  acres 
and  city  lots  of  the  millionaire;  ''and  to  deny  it,  is 
robbery." 


28 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


Here  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  George  endows 
everyone  with  something  so  real  and  positive  that  the 
denial  of  it  is  an  act  of  injustice.  He  makes  not  only 
the  soil  of  one's  country,  but  of  the  whole  world,  the 
joint  property  of  all  mankind,  and  gives  to  every 
individual  a  positive  share  which  he  can  call  his  own^ 
Now  what  does  this  mean?  As  we  have  already  seen, 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  ownership  without  the  moral 
power  or  right  of  excluding  others  from  that  which  is 
claimed  as  one's  own.  This  belongs  to  the  very 
essence  of  ownership ;  it  is  involved  in  the  very 
nature  of  .property.  What  you  rightfully  call  your 
own,  so  belongs  to  you  as  to  give  you  the  moral 
power  or  right  to  shut  out  all  others.  Without 
this  right  of  exclusion  there  is  no  real  ownership. 
There  maybe  possession,  there  may  be  use,  but  there 
can  be  no  ownership.  To  say  then  with  Mr.  George 
that  the  land  belongs  by  nature  to  all  men  "  in  com- 
mon," in  the  sense  that  everyone  enjoys  a  real, 
positive  ownership  of  the  land,  is  the  same  as  to  say 
that  everyone  has  the  right  to  exclude  from  the  land 
everyone  else  :  and  as  the  rights  of  all  are  equal,  all 
men  mutually  exclude  each  other  and  are  excluded 
— and  this  is  the  same  as  saying,  there  is  no  ownership 
at  all.  And  thus  we  find  ourj^elves  again  driven  by 
Mr.  George's  erroneous  theory,  into  the 

ABSURDITIES  OF  PURE  COMMUNISM. 

In  a  voluntary  association  or  society,  as  a  religious 
order,  where  all  things  are  possess-ed  in  common, 
there  is  no  individual  ownership,  for  that  is  vol- 
untarily renounced;  but  there  is  a  real,  positive 
ownership  vested  in  the  community  ;  for  that  com- 


OP  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


29 


munity  not  only  possesses  and  uses  property,  but  it 
excludes  from  its  possession  all  who  are  not  associates 
or  members  of  that  society.  It  enjoys  real  owner- 
ship, because  it  so  possesses  its  own  goods-  as  to 
exclude  others  from  them. 

But  it  is  not  so  in  the  case  of  mankind  in  general, 
or  the  whole  human  race  as  forming  one  community. 
As  they  include  all  men,  there  can  be,  in  such  a 
society,  no  real,  positive  ownership  in  common,  for 
there  is  no  one  to  exclude.  The  only  sense  then  in 
which  we  can  say  with  truth  that  the  land  and  all 
things  else  were  given  to  men  in  common,  is  the 
negative  sense  ;  namely,  that  nature  made  no  division, 
nature  gave  no  fee  simple,  she  offered  her  treasures 
to  all,  and  gave  each  one  a  right  to  make  those 
treasures  his  own  by  his  labor  and  skill  for  the  sup- 
port and  enjoyment  of  life,  but  with  due  regard  to 
the  wants  and  rights  of  others.  There  is  no  precept 
of  the  natural  law  which  commands  the  division  of 
property,  whether  in  land  or  other  goods.  If  men, 
therefore,  choose  to  possess  "in  common"  rather 
than  in  severalty,  they  are  not  violating  the  natural 
law.  But  if  they  prefer  to  own  land  and  other  things 
by  exclusive  individual  ownership,  they  are  not  act- 
ing against  natural  justice.  What  precept  of  the 
natural  law  forbids  individual  ownership  and  posi- 
tively enjoins  a  community  of  goods?  It  will  not  do 
to  make  a  distinction  between  land  and  other  things. 
Nature  has  made  none  in  her  bounteous  provision 
for  the  wants  of  men.  She  neither  commands  nor 
forbids  a  community  of  goods.  She  leaves  it  to 
man's  reason,  to  determine  how  her  gifts  can  best  be 
used.    Mankind  has  determined  the  question,  and 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


the  decision  is  the  voice  of  man's  rational  nature,  the 
expression  of  the  natural  law,  in  the  conscience  and 
the  experience  of  the  human  race.  The  practice  of 
mankind,  including  all  periods  and  all  grades  of 
civilization,  has  been  to  sanction  and  approve  the 
individual  ownership  of  property,  including  landed 
property. 

HUMAN  LAW  DID  NOT  CREATE 

The  right  of  ownership  in  land  or  in  anything 
else.  It  found  that  right  in  actual  existence  ;  it  threw 
around  it  the  aegis  of  its  protection  ;  it  can  control  and 
regulate  it  in  the  interest  of  the  community  ;  but  it 
can  no  more  abolish  the  right  of  personal  ownership 
than  it  can  pretend  to  have  created  it.  This  right  is 
recognized  and  sanctioned  by  divine  law  in  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament ;  it  has  been  taught  and 
exercised  in  every  age  by  the 

CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 

The  great  teachers  of  ethics,  the  great  doctors 
and  theologians  of  the  church,  have  unanimously  in- 
culcated it ;  the  wisest  and  holiest  of  mankind  have 
acted  upon  it ;  it  is  embodied  in  the  laws  and  customs 
of  every  civilized  state  ;  therefore  it  is  a  just  right. 
For,  in  the  words  of  St.  Augustin,  "  Securus  judical 
orhis  terrarum;  the  world  cannot  go  astray  on  a  vital 
principle  of  natural  justice. 

The  people  of  any  community  or  state  may,  if  it 
so  please  them,  agree  to  hold  land  in  common,  t|) 
nationalize  it,  or  to  tax  the  land  exclusively ;  but 
they  can  neither  confiscate  without  compensation  the 
land  of  actual  owners,  nor    deny  to  any  man  the 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


81 


right,  if  he  choose  to  exercise  it,  of  private  ownership. 
To  teach  the  contrar}'^  is  to  preach  a  gospel  of 
robbery. 

Community  of  goods  flourished  in  its  most  perfect 
form  among  the  early  Christians  ;  it  has  flourished 
ever  since  among  the  religious  orders  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  has  been  tried  with  varying  success  by 
other  associations,  generafly  from  a  religious  motive. 
But  who  does  not  know  that  this  was  of  counsel  only, 
and  not  of  precept?  Along  with  this  voluntary  prac- 
tice of  communism  there  existed  the  full  recognition 
of  man's  right  to  individvial  ownership.  They  sold 
all  they  had,  including  landed  property,  and  gave  it 
to  the  poor ;  not  because  they  were  robbers  and  had 
to  make  restitution,  but  to  follow  Christ  in  the  path 
of  perfection.  Let  Mr.  George,  if  he  can,  persuade 
men  to  do  the  same,  and  no  one  w^ill  quarrel  with  this 
form  of  communism. 

Meanwhile,  is  it  quite  certain,  from  the  evidence 
of  our  own  histoiy  and  experience,  that  the  lot  of  the 
poor  man  would  be  bettered  by  making  the  state  or 
community  the  sole  and  universal  landlord?  We  have 
seen  the  public  domain,  the  heritage  of  the  American 
people,  given  away  by  the  millions  of  acres,  to  great 
corporations,  which  have  waxed  so  insolent  by  reason 
of  their  pkinder  as  to  defy  the  very  government  that 
made  them  rich. 

ARE  MEN  MORE  PURE  AND  HONEST 

When  they  act  in  public  capacities  as  members  of 
a  state  or  city  government  than  when  they  act  in 
their  private  capacity  as  landlords  or  employers  of 
labor?    Is  it  not  notoriouslv  the  reverse?  Have  we 


32 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


not  often  seen  men  doing  as  politicians  what  they 
would  be  ashamed  to  do  in  private  life?  Who  has 
proclaimed  the  corruption  of  municipal  and  state 
governments  more  emphatically  than  Mr.  George? 
Yet  it  is  to  such  bodies  as  these  he  would  confine  the 
rights  of  absolute  ownership  ;  and  as  if  to  extend  the 
field  of  pickings  and  stealings,  he  would  entrust  to 
them  the  duty  of  assessing  and  spending  the  rents  of 
everybody  all  over  the  area  of  every  state.  And  this, 
he  would  persuade  the  workingman,  would  soon  bring 
about  a  vast  improvement  in  his  lot  and  restore  to 
him  at  last  the  equal  rights  of  which  he  is  now  robbed 
by  the  owners  of  land.  Equal  rights  I  !  Ah  I  equal 
rights  !  ! 
Here  is 

ANOTHER  OF  MR.    GEORGE's  MISCHIEVOUS  SOPHISMS. 

What  does  he  mean  by  equal  rights?  Is  it  equality 
of  political,  or  civil  rights,  or  equality  of  natural  rights, 
or  equality  before  the  law?  When  you  come  to 
analyze  it,  he  seems  to  mean  equality  of  social  con- 
dition, an  equality  which  never  existed  and  never 
will  exist  except  in  the  dream  of  socialists. 
In  this  actual,  everyday  world  of  ours,  it  is 
not  the  law  of  equality  but  that  of  inequality 
which  prevails.  Men  are  indeed  on  a  footing  of  per- 
fect equality,  in  the  abstract,  when  you  consider  their 
specific  nature  as  men,  but  when  you  come  to  indi- 
viduals, in  the  real  concrete  world  of  fact,  the  true 
proposition  is,  ''all  men  are  unequal unequal  in 
size,  in  health,  in  talent,  in  personal  gifts,  in  edu- 
cation, in  manners,  in  strength,  in  wealth,  and,  there- 
fore, in  social  condition.    As  men,  and  in  all  that  be- 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


33 


longs  to  their  essence  as  men,  viz.,  as  rational  beings, 
as  composed  of  soul  and  body,  as  free  agents,  as 
children  of  the  same  Father,  as  destined  to  the  same 
end — all  men  are  equal.  The  rights  which  spring 
from  man's  nature  as  man  are  undoubtedly  the  same 
in  all,  for  the  specific  nature  of  all  is  the  same.  But 
as  individuals,  one  man  may  by  his  own  acts  estab- 
lish rights  which  do  not  belong  to  another.  All  men 
have  aright,  as  men,  to  procure  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence ;  but  A.,  by  his  activity,  his  exertions,  his 
skill,  or  his  labor,  may  establish  his  right  to  this  par- 
ticular object,  to  which  B.  can  lay  no  claim.  The 
occupation  and  ownership  of  the  land  by  one  does 
not  deprive  others  of  their  rights,  as  men.  They,  too, 
have  a  right  to  live  by  the  soil  if  they  choose,  but 
they  have  no  right  to  this  particular  spot  which  A., 
by  his  industry  and  toil,  has  made  his  own. 
This  is  the 

ANSWER  TO  MR.  GEORGE's  MOST  FALLACIOUS 
ARGUMENT, 

That  no  generation  can  own  land,  since  they  would 
defraud  the  succeeding  generations  of  their  rights. 
"  Had  the  men  of  the  last  generation  [he  asks]  any 
better  right  to  the  use  of  this  world  than  we?"  No, 
they  had  no  better  right ;  their  rights  and  ours,  as 
men,  are  precisely  the  same.  But  because  they  had 
the  same  right  as  we  to  become  owners,  and  as  indi- 
viduals exercised  their  right,  performing  certain  pos- 
itive, concrete  acts,  they  thereby  established  their 
title  to  certain  definite  objects,  to  which  we  can  lay 
no  claim.  In  making  those  objects  their  own  they 
robbed  us  of  none  of  our  rights.    We  have  precisely 


34 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


the  same  right  to  become  owners  as  they  had.  "  But," 
says  Mr.  George,  "  they  have  taken  away  from  us 
the  means  of  subsistence.  The  land  is  meant  for  all. 
Have  not  we,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  the  same  right  as 
preceding  generations  to  live  by  the  soil?  How  can 
we  do  so  if  they  are  allowed  to  monopolize  what  is 
necessary  for  all?"  And  then  Mr.  George  treats  us 
to  a  rhetorical  illustration  : 

"  Has  the  first-comer  at  a  banquet  the  right  to  turn 
back  all  the  chairs,  and  claim  that  none  of  the  other 
guests  shall  partake  of  the  food  provided,  except  as 
they  make  terms  with  him  ?  Does  the  first  man  who 
presents  a  ticket  at  the  door  of  a  theater  possess  by 
his  priority  the  right  to  shut  the  door,  and  have  the 
performance  go  on  for  him  alone?" 

Mr.  George's  illustration  is  neither  novel  nor 
appropriate.  It  was  used  as  an  objection  and 
answered  by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  he  cited  it  from  St.  Basil,  in  the  fourth 
century.  The  answer  is  obvious.  The  first-comer  at 
a  banquet  has  no  right  to  turn  back  all  the  chairs, 
but  he  has  a  right  to  turn  back  or  reserve  one  for 
himself;  and  in  doing  so,  he  infringes  upon  no  right  of 
those  who  come  after.  The  first  man  who  presents  a 
ticket  at  the  door  of  a  theater  acquires  no  right  to 
shut  the  door  against  all  others,  and  keep  the  per- 
formance all  to  himself.  But  he  has  a  right  to  a  seat 
for  one  ;  those  who  come  after  have  the  same  right, 
but  not  to  oust  him  from  his  place. 

And  so  it  is  in  regard  to  the  land.  The  title  of 
ownership  to  land  established  by  one  generation  does 
not  take  away  the  rights  of  the  next  generation. 
The  succeeding  generation  has  no  right  of  ow^nership 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


86 


till  it  has  established  its  title  by  its  own  exertions. 
But  (argues  Mr.  George)  there  will  be  no  place  left 
for  the  later  generation,  and  you  thus  deprive  them  of 
the  means  of  subsistence.  I  answer,  in  the  first  place, 
robbing  the  present  owners,  and  making  the  state  the 
landlord,  will  not  remedy  the  scarcity  of  land  arising 
from  the  growth  of  population.  The  quantity  of  land 
will  remain  the  same,  whether  the  state  or  the  indi- 
vidual is  the  landlord.  If  it  needs  to  be  more  equally 
distributed,  that  can  be  effected  without  plundering 
the  landowners.  In  the  second  place,  there  are  other 
v/ays  of  earning  a  livelihood  besides  that  of  culivat- 
ing  the  soil.  All  men  have  a  right  to  till  the  land  if 
that  manner  of  life  pleases  them.  They  may  believe 
or  pretend  to  believe  with  Horace,  that  it  is  the  only 
happy  life,  but  there  is  no  law^  that  all  should  be  hus- 
bandmen. The  earth  must  be  cultivated,  else  )i^e 
could  not  live  ;  but  it  need  not  be  cultivated  by  ever}^ 
individual.  This  obvious  truth  seems  to  have  escaped 
the  penetrating  mind  of  Mr.  George.  Some  may  pre- 
fer another  manner  of  life,  some  may  find  no  oppor- 
tunity to  follow  the  vocation  of  a  farmer,  or  the 
chances  may  be  less  favorable  at  one  period  than  at 
another.  This,  however,  deprives  them  of  none  of 
their  natural  rights.  To  use  an  illustration :  The 
right  to  marry  is  a  natural  right.  It  is  not  the  creation 
of  any  human  law,  but  springs  from  the  very  nature 
of  man  as  a  social  being. 

Matrimony  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  pre- 
servation and  propagation  of  the  species  ;  but  this  does 
not  impose  on  every  individual  the  obligation  to 
marry.  Without  matrimony  human  society  could  not 
subsist.    It  is  a  necessity  for  the  human  race  ;  but  the 


36 


THE  PH1L080PHY 


individual  is  free  to  marry,  or  not,  as  he  chooses.  So 
is  it  a  necessity  for  the  human  race  to  cultivate  the 
soil,  but  the  individual  is  free  to  adopt  that  or  any 
other  lawful  avocation.  If  in  old  and  thickly-inhabited 
countries  the  land  is  crowded,  and  a  later  generation 
finds  no  lands  unoccupied,  that  constitutes  a  serious 

PROBLEM  FOR  THE  PRACTICAL  STATESMAN  : 

Whether  to  encourage  the  still  further  subdivision  of 
the  land  or  to  turn  the  tide  of  population  towards  col- 
onization, or  to  find  in  the  multiplication  of  industrial 
pursuits  means  of  occupation  and  subsistence  for  all. 
In  any  case,  as  already  remarked,  it  is  no  solution  of 
the  problem  to  expropriate  the  actual  owners  of  the 
soil,  and  make  the  state  the  universal  landlord. 
When  a  population  becomes  too  large  for  the  means 
of  subsistence,  a  mere  change  of  landlords  will  not 
remedv  the  evil. 

Mr.  George  would  distribute  the  w^ealth  of  the 
community  more  evenly  and  fairly,  and  to  accom- 
plish this  benevolent  design  see  what  he  would  do  ! 
He  would  rob  the  widow  of  her  title  to  her  farm,  the 
home  secured  to  her  by  the  long  labor  of  her  de- 
ceased husband,  and  recognized  as  rightly  hers  by 
the  laws  of  all  civilized  countries.  He  would  rob  the 
disabled  soldier  whose  country  has  rewarded  his 
valor  and  his  wounds  with  a  gift  of  land  ;  he  would 
confiscate  their  land  without  a  penny  of  compensa- 
tion, for  reasons  which  are  nothing  but  shallow 
sophisms. 

But  the  capitalist,  the  owner  of  houses,  of  ma- 
chinery, of  stocks  and  bonds,  the  employer  of  thou- 
sands of  men,  Mr.   George  not  only  frees  from  all 


OF  THE  LAND  QUKSTION. 


taxation,  but  he  arms  him  with  absohite  power,  re- 
sponsible to  no  one : 

"  That  which  a  man  makes  or  produces,"  he  says, 
"  is  his  own,  as  against  all  the  world,  to  enjoy  or  de- 
stroy, to  use,  to  exchange  or  give."  Here  is  abso- 
lute dominion,  an  unlimited  and  unrestrained  right 
to  enjoy  or  to  destroy  what  is  his.  The  cruelest  task- 
master that  ever  ground  the  life  out  of  his  slaves,  the 
most  heartless  monopolist,  the  most  unpitying  spend- 
thrift that  refuses  the  crumbs  of  his  table  to  the  starv- 
ing Lazarus  at  his  gate,  is  sustained  and  justified  by 
this  principle  of  Henry  George.  He  does  what  he 
pleases  with  his  own  :  "  it  is  his  to  enjoy  or  to  de- 
stroy," to  do  with  it  what  he  likes.  Now  I  maintain 
that  no  civilized  community  ever  admitted  this  prin- 
ciple of  absolute  dominion  in  the  owner  of  any  kind 
of  property. 

Man's  right  of  ownership  is  in  every  case  a  sub- 
ordinate and  restricted  right.  All  his  rights  are  de- 
pendent on  his  Maker,  and  the  exercise  even  of  his 
natural  rights  is  modified  by  the  equal  rights  of  others, 
and  the  superior  rights  of  the  whole  community. 
There  is  no  species  of  property  but  is  subject  to  re- 
strictions imposed  by  the 

LAW  OF  GOD  AND  BY  THE  NEEDS   OP^  MEN. 

This  is  especially  the  case  in  landed  property.  Land 
is  at  once  limited  in  quantity,  and  essential  to  the 
production  of  the  general  necessaries  of  life.  These 
make  land  a  unique  and  exceptional  commodity,  and 
subject  it  to  more  direct  control  by  the  community 
than  any  other  sort  of  property.  As  soon  as  popula- 
tion has  so  increased  as  to  begin  to  crowd  upon  the 


38 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


means  of  subsistence,  the  State  has  a  right  to  see 
that  the  most  productive  use  possible  is  being  made 
of  its  land,  and  to  introduce  such  laws  as  shall  effec- 
tually secure  that  end.  It  can  forbid  and  make  null 
the  sale  of  its  lands  to  aliens  or  foreign  capitalists  ;  it 
can  regulate  the  maximum  amount  of  land  that  could 
be  held  by  any  individual  or  corporation  without  be- 
ing actually  occupied  and  cultivated. 

The  very  natural  and  very  just  demand  of  the 
Irish  people  through  their  bishops  and  representa- 
tives, that  the  land  should  belong  to  the  people — 

"  THE  LAND  FOR  THE  PEOPLE'^ 

— has  been  distorted  by  Mr.  George  and  his  followers, 
into  the  socialistic  cry  of  confiscation.  For  whom 
was  the  land  of  any  country  intended  by  the  Al- 
mighty? Plainly,  for  the  people  of  that  country  ;  not 
for  aliens,  not  for  enemies,  not  to  be  used  as  a  means 
of  oppressing  and  exterminating  the  inhabitants 
whom  the  providence  of  God  has  rooted  to  the  soil. 
The  land  of  Italy  belongs  by  nature  to  the  people  of 
Italy,  not  to  Spaniards,  or  Austrians,  or  Russians. 
The  land  of  the  United  States  is  meant  by  nature  for 
the  people  of  these  United  States,  nor  should  it  ever  be 
suffered  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  foreign  syndicates. 
So  does  the  land  of  Ireland 

BELONG    BY  NATURE    TO    THE    PEOPLE    OF  IRELAND, 

Not  to  the  people  of  Scotland,  nor  to  the  people  of 
England,  nor  to  an  English  garrison  planted  in  Ire- 
land to  plunder  and  oppress  the  natives  of  the  soil. 

"  The  land  for  the  people"  has  a  meaning  for  the 
Irish  people,  which  others  can  scarcely  realize.  To 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


'A9 


them  it  means  escape  from  the  unspeakable  outrages 
of  a  heartless  and  irresponsible  landlordism,  such  as 
the  civilized  world  has  never  seen  elsewhere.  It 
means  escape  from  hunger,  thirst,  nakedness,  notice 
to  quit,  labor  spent  in  vain,  the  toil  of  years  seized 
upon,  the  breaking  up  of  homes,  the  miseries,  sick- 
nesses, deaths  of  parents,  children,  wives,  the  despair 
and  wildness  which  spring  up  in  the  hearts  of  the 
poor  when  legal  force,  like  a  sharp  harrow,  goes  over 
the  most  sensitive  and  vital  rights  of  mankind.'^ 

That  the  land  should  belong  to  the  people  is  but 
the  expression  of  a  principle  of  natural  justice.  But 
it  does  not  mean  that  the  land  of  any  country  belongs 
to  the  whole  people  in  common,  or  to  the  whole  world 
in  common  ;  it  does  not  mean  that  land  should  be 
taken  from  those  who  have  earned  it,  and  given  to 
those  who  have  not,  whether  with  or  without  the  guise 
of  law.  Mr.  George  believes  that  the  world  owes 
everyone  a  living.  The  world  owes  nothing  to  any 
one. 

THE  LAW  OF  LABOR  IS  THE  LAW  OF  OUR  EXISTENCE. 

We  must  earn  our  bread  in  the  sweat  of  our  face. 
The  honest  toiler  has  as  much  right  as  the  rich  man 
to  the  comforts  of  life,  if  he  can  honestly  win  them. 
In  our  country  at  least  there  is  yet  no  lack  of  land 
for  those  who  are  willing  to  cultivate  it.  But  to  men 
who  are  not  living  in  socialistic  dreams  it  is  not  so 
very  evident  that  the  working  classes  are  pining  for  a 
country  life.  Nor  can  they  see  in  the  plausible 
phrases  of  Mr.  George  any  proof  that  taxing  the 
land  and  only  the  land,  and  taxing  it  to  its  full  value, 
will  encourage  poor  people  to  cultivate  it  or  will  put 


40 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


them  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  the  untaxed  cap- 
italist. 

A  just  government  owes  all  its  citizens  the  equcil 
protection  of  their  rights.  To  take  away  land  from 
the  rich  without  compensation  and  give  it  to  the  poor, 
with  the  aim  of  equalizing  wealth,  is  plunder  under 
the  guise  of  philanthropy.  To  allow  the  rich  to  deal 
as  they  like  with  tenants,  employes,  and  cultivators 
of  their  lands,  without  holding  them  responsible  for 
the  well-being  of  their  dependants,  is  oppression 
under  the  guise  of  liberty.  No  clamor  about  the 
rights  of  property  should  make  us  forget  that  the 
cultivator  of  the  soil  has  a  right  to  draw  from  his 
labor  a  decent  livelihood  according  to  his  station.  Nor 
are  land  owners  the  only  people  who  have  responsi- 
bilities. The  same  principle  applies  to  every  species  of 
capital.  Neither  rent  nor  interest,  neither  profit  nor 
dividend  is  fair,  if  it  encroaches  upon  the  decent 
support  of  the  workman.  That  is  the  first  charge  to 
be  met,  and  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  lien  upon  every 
form  of  industry.  The  whole  of  a  workingman's  life 
should  not  be  a  ceaseless  struggle  merely  to  exist, 
merely  to  procure  sufficient  food  to  keep  him  alive, 
from  day  to  day.  There  ought  to  be  a  margin  for 
thrift,  a  fair  field  for  energy,  the  means  of  supporting 
and  educating  his  children,  according  to  their  station. 
It  is  neither  justice  nor  humanity  that  his  labor  should 
win  for  him  a  bare  subsistence,  whilst  it  adds  enor- 
mously to  the  superfluous  luxuries  of  his  employer. 

To  secure  to  labor  this  just  compensation  (whether 
by  co-operation  or  arbitration,  or  some  such  means,) 
is  to-day  the  most  important  duty  of  the  practical 
statesman  and  of  wise  laws. 


OF  THK  LAND  QUESTION. 


41 


THE  TRUE  P^RIENDS   OF  THE  WORKINGMAN 

Will  encourage  him  to  secure  a  home  for  his 
family  which  shall  be  all  his  own.  The  community 
in  which  the  working  classes  generally  own  their 
house  and  lot,  is  an  unfavorable  field  for  socialistic 
doctrines.  Of  all  the  cities  in  the  United  States  the 
one  which  has  suffered  least  from  socialistic  agitation 
is  Philadelphia,  the  city  of  workingmen's  homes. 

Still,  when  all  has  been  done  that  wise  and  just 
laws  can  accomplish,  when  all  has  been  done  that 
the  workingmen  themselves  can  effect  by  combina- 
tion, co-operation,  and  organization,  it  will  be  found 
that 

POVERTY  HAS  NOT  BEEN  ABOLISHED 

and  inequality  of  social  condition  has  not  disap- 
peared. So  long  as  men  are  free,  and  can  abuse  their 
free-will  to  remain  idle  and  vicious  ;  so  long  as  man- 
kind is  subject  to  passions  and  vices,  to  sickness, 
losses,  misfortunes  and  death,  so  long  will  there  be 
suffering  and  poverty  in  the  world. 

Abuses  undoubtedly  exist,  not  alone  in  the  tenure 
of  land,  but,  in  general,  in  the  methods  of  acquiring 
wealth.  Dishonest  forms  of  speculation,  corrupt 
schemes,  violated  contracts,  the  crushing  out  of  op- 
position by  unscrupulous  means,  bribery,  forgery,  the 
betrayal  of  trusts,  fraudulent  bankruptcy,  the  perver- 
sion of  the  whole  machinery  of  justice  in  favor  of 
criminals  and  criminal  uses,  who  can  deny  the  pre- 
valence of  these  methods  and  their  deplorable  results? 
But  who,  except  a  visionary,  can  see  a  remedy  for 
these  and  the  like  evils  in  the 


42 


th£  philosophy 


CONFISCATION  OF  THE  LAND  TO  THE  STATE. 

Mr.  George  has  learned  his  ethics  from  unsound 
teachers.  Logic  he  has  learned  from  no  one!  His 
reasoning  throughout  this  book  is  vitiated  by  the  use 
of  ambiguous  middle  terms,  the  most  commonplace 
and  the  most  discreditable  of  all  sophisms.  His 
religious  notions  are  too  crude  to  correct  the  mis- 
chievous principles  of  his  philosophy.  In  his  gospel 
poverty  is  the  one  great  evil,  and  man's  highest  good 
is  the  equal  distribution  of  wealth.  To  escape  the 
one  and  attain  the  other  is  the  chief  aim  of  life. 
These  are  pagan  errors,  the  necessary  outgrowth  of 
an  education  which  ignores  Christian  ethics.  Mr. 
George  seems  to  forget  that  poverty  is  compatible 
with  a  virtuous  life  and  the  highest  moral  excellence  : 
that  neither  riches  nor  refinement  constitutes  happiness 
or  virtue  ;  that  wealth  may  be  found  in  close  partner- 
ship with  dishonesty  and  moral  degradation ;  that 
man's  highest  good  is  not  a  mere  earthly  end  to 
be  attained  in  this  life.  Not  all  the  eloquent  de- 
clamation of  Mr.  George  can  prove  that  mere  inequal- 
ity of  social  condition  is  in  itself  unjust  or  unnatural  ; 
nor  that  all  the  rich  are  vampires  and  all  the  poor 
their  victims.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  no  thoughtful 
man  can  deny  that  the  laboring  classes  have  real 
grievances.  They  are  too  often  forced  to  "  bear  the 
whips  and  scorns  of  time  " — "  the  oppressor's  wrong, 
the  proud  man's  contumely,  the  insolence  of  office — 
the  law's  delays" — the  defeat  of  justice  by  the 
wealthy  and  powerful. 

Neither  patriotism  nor  Christianity  can  look  on 
with  indifference  whilst  the  weak  are  devoured  by  the 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION 


43 


Strong,  and  the  simple  by  the  crafty.  Mr.  George 
draws  a  frightful,  and,  alas  I  a  true  picture,  of  the 
poverty,  misery  and  degradation  which  have  been 
brought  about  by  the 

IMPROPER  USE  OF  LARGE  FORTUNES. 

This,  however,  is  not  the  necessary  result  of 
wealth,  but  arises  from  the  dishonest  methods  of 
acquiring  it,  and  from  the  base,  selfish  and  criminal 
uses  to  which  it  is  put  by  those  who  hold  with  Mr. 
George  that  they  have  an  absolute  right  to  use  their 
wealth  as  they  choose  and  do  as  they  please  with 
their  own. 

If  society  needs  to  be  reconstructed  it  cannot  be 
done  by  the  methods  of  disorder  and  injustice.  To 
cancel  the  farmer's  title  to  his  land,  or  the  working- 
man's  title  to  his  lot,  without  a  penny  of  compensa- 
tion ;  to  change  them  from  owners  into  tenant-at-will 
of  the  state,  this  transaction  theorizers  may  call  "  the 
new  political  economy"  or  ''The  New  Crusade  ;'' 
the  owners  call  it  robbery,  pure  and  simple.  What 
kind  of  moral  teaching  is  it  which  advises  the  state  to 
confiscate,  without  a  penny  of  compensation,  the  land 
which  it  sold,  on  its  own  terms,  to  its  own  citizens,  or 
to  dona  fide  settlers?  Is  not  this 

A  POLICY  OF  PLUNDER? 

True  friendship  to  the  poor  can  not  consist  in  steal- 
ing their  property  from  those  whose  title  is  held  valid 
by  the  whole  civilized  world.  It  is  as  much  against 
the  interest  of  the  laboring  man  as  it  is  opposed  to 
that  of  the  farmer  and  the  capitalist,  to  obscure  the 
truth  or  to  confuse  men's  notions  of  justice. 


44 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


The  social  question  can  never  be  settled  till  it  is 
settled  right. That  which  is  morally  wrong  can  not 
be  politically  or  economically  right.  To  imagine 
that  human  society  can  exist  without  the  different 
social  strata,  is  an  idle  dream.  Nature  neither  in- 
tended it  nor  will  suffer  it.  To  build  a  permanent 
social  order,  there  must  be  the  foundation  of  justice. 
To  bind  the  different  members  together  there  must 
be  the  cement  of  Christian  charity.  A  few  popular 
treatises  on  the  duties,  rather  than  on  the  rights  of 
men,  on  the  duties  of  all,  poor  as  well  as  rich  ;  a  few 
popular  pamphlets  on  the  virtues  of  industry  and 
sobriety,  on  charity  and  patience  ;  a  few  plain  homilies 
on  the  texts,  ''  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
goods,"  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  "  Do  unto  others  as  you 
would  have  others  do  unto  you,"  would  go  farther 
towards  a  rational  solution  of  the  social  problem  than 
all  Mr.  George's  fervid  eloquence  and  brilliant  so- 
phistry about  equal  rights.  All  the  arguments  of 
political  economy  will  not  make  one  rich  man  un- 
selfish or  prevent  one  poor  man  coveting  the  wealth  of 
Dives.  Put  before  them  both,  as  the  highest  good 
to  be  aimed  at,  a  purely  material  and  earthly  enjoy- 
ment, shutout  from  the  vision  of  both,  the  hard  duties 
of  life,  preach  the  degradation  of  poverty,  the  in- 
justice of  social  inequality,  the  iniquity  of  wealth, 
and  you  will  inevitably  make  the  poor  discontented 
and  turbulent,  whilst  the  rich  will  be  driven,  in  self- 
defense,  into  a  sterner  and  harsher  antagonism. 
Envy  and  hatred  are  always  so  close  to  the  surface  in 
man's  fallen  nature,  that  but  slight  provocation  is 
needed  to  make  them  burst  forth  into  active  violence. 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


46 


The  man  with  much,  wants  more.  The  man  whh 
nothing  covets  everything.  What  philosophy  is 
there  strong  enough  to  subdue  the  avarice  of  the  one 
and  the  covetousness  of  the  other?  What  incentive 
will  you  propose  to  make  these  two  join  hands  in  a 
holy  brotherhood,  the  rich  man  to  lift  up  his  weaker 
brother,  the  poor  man  to  stand  by  the  other's  side, 
feeling  neither  abject  nor  envious?  There  is  only 
one  philosophy  on  earth  capable  of  this  transforma- 
tion, and  that  is  the 

DIVINE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  CRUCIFIED  ONE  ; 

Only  one  motive,  and  that  is  to  be  found  in  the 
charity  of  the  Gospel.  Take  away  this,  and  what 
motive  can  you  propose  to  stay  the  hands  of  the 
masses,  excited  to  fury  by  the  harangues  of  unprin- 
cipled or  misguided  leaders,  and  conscious  of  their 
power? 

Only  under  the  banner  of  the  Cross  ;  only  in  the 
presence  of  Christ,  who  being  rich  became  poor  for 
us,  will  the  divisions  and  antagonisms  of  life  die 
away. 

Poverty  is  the  wedded  bride  of  Christ,  and  the 
poor  are  his  children.  The  rich  are  the  almoners  of 
God,  and  are  blessed  in  being  the  instruments  of  his 
merc)'.    But  what  meaning  have  these 

FIRST  PRINCIPLES  OF  CHRISTIAN  SOCIOLOGY 

To  men  who  take  their  rule  of  life  from  the  agnostics 
Herbert  Spencer  and  John  Stuart  Mill,  and  their 
ethical  principles  from  the  pantheists  Fichte  and 
Hegel  ?    Here  is  the 


46 


THE  PHILOSOPHY 


REAL  DANGER  OF  THE  PRESENT  AGITATION. 

Our  workingmen  are  not  communists.  Our  rich 
men  are  not  all  heartless.  But  there  are  seeds 
of  communism  and  of  heartless,  materialistic  atheism 
sown  in  the  minds  of  both  classes,  and  scattered 
broadcast  in  the  literature  they  patronize  and  in 
the  favorite  books  of  their  children.  Whilst  the 
wealthy  classes  enjoy  their  Spencer  and  their  Hux- 
ley, their  Taine  and  their  George  Sand,  and  the 
novels  of  the  unsavory  French  school,  the  working- 
men  have  their  cheap  publications,  which  regale  them 
with  strong  draughts  of  socialistic  philosophy,  well 
spiced  with  the  ribaldry  of  Tom  Payne,  Bradlaugh 
and  Ingersoll. 

The  open  advocac}^  of  dishonesty  would  shock  the 
innate  sense  of  justice  in  the  breasts  of  the  working- 
men  :  undisguised  anarchism  they  reject.  But  the 
plausible  theories  and  sophistical  reasoning  of  vision- 
aries like  Henry  George  act  like  poison  upon  a  system 
relaxed  and  weakened  by  an  unsound,  unchristian 
education.  Here,  then,  is  the  place  for  a  remedy 
which  shall  go  to  the  root  of  the  evil. 

The  social  problem  is  more 

A  QUESTION  OF  MORALITY  AND  RELIGION 

Than  it  is  of  political  economy.  The  time  will  never 
come  when  all  inequality  of  social  condition  shall  dis- 
appear ;  but  it  is  well  to  remember  that  inequality  of 
wealth,  of  talent  and  of  station  is  a  mere  trifle  com- 
pared with  those  things  in  which  the  poor  and  the 
rich  are  equal  before  God  and  man  —  that  a  man's 
moral  conduct  is  the  all-important  thing,  and  this  is 


OF  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


47 


not  determined  by  the  quality  of  his  clothes  or  the 
hardness  of  his  hands.  It  is  not  heaven  to  be  rich, 
nor  is  it  hell  to  be  poor.  The  true  philosophy  of  life 
is  contained,  not  in  the  gospel  of  discontent  and 
spoliation,  by  whomsoever  preached,  but  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  should  form  the  first 
and  last  lesson  in  the  moral  training  of  the  rich  and 
the  poor  alike. 


\ 


Fallacies  ol  Henry  George 

EXPOSED  AND  REFUTED. 


—  OF  THE   


By  rev.  EDW.  a.  HIGGINS,  S.  J., 

President  St.  Xavier  College.  Cincinnati. 


ITIIOE,  XO  Ctis. 


Address  all  Communications  to 

ST".  XAVIER  COISTKERKNCE, 

Box  107,  Cincinnati,  O. 


A.  M.  D.  G. 


To  the  members  of  the  St.  Xavier  Cotiference : 

Gentlemen: — This  lecture  was  in  substance  pre- 
pared during  the  winter  as  one  in  a  course  of  post- 
graduate lectures.  Since  then  several  articles  have 
appeared  in  the  magazines  and  periodicals  covering 
portions  of  the  same  ground,  and  an  active  propagandism 
has  been  carried  on  bj  Mr.  George  and  his  followers, 
keeping  up  the  public  interest  in  the  question.  At  your 
request  and  under  jour  auspices  I  delivered  it  in  the 
Odeon,  the  day  after  Mr.  George's  chief  lieutenant  had 
preached  the  "New  Crusade*'  to  the  workingmen  of 
this  city,  and  you  have  since  asked  me  to  publish  it  as  a 
refutation  of  Mr.  George's  errors  on  the  ownership  of 
land.  The  opinion  so  generally  expressed  by  those 
who  heard  the  lecture,  that  the  argument  was  clear  and 
easily  followed,  leads  me  to  believe  that  its  publication 
may  do  further  good,  by  exposing  before  a  larger  public, 
Mr.  George's  fallacies,  and  establishing  the  true  basis  of 
ownership.  If  its  sale  enables  you  to  help  the  destitute 
poor,  whom  it  is  your  privilege  to  assist,  I  shall  feel 
happy  to  have  had  a  share  in  your  charitable  work.  I 
send  you  the  lecture  for  publication,  and  subscribe 
myself,  Your  friend, 

EDW.  A.  HIGGINS,  S.J. 

St.  Xavier  College. 


incent  de 


ST.  XAVIER  CONFERENCE. 


Cincinnati,  Maj',  1887. 

Dear  Sir  : — As  the  Rev.  Father  has  so  kindly 
donated  us  his  lecture,  we  have  had  it  printed  in 
pamphlet  form  of  a  convenient  pocket  size. 

Believing  it  our  duty  to  give  it  the  most  extensive 
distribution  possible,  we  have  placed  the  price  at  10 
cents  per  copy.  The  entire  press  of  our  city  has  given 
to  this  lecture  one  and  two-column  notices,  and  both  in 
this  and  other  cities  it  has  received  in  addition  column 
editorials. 

In  the  words  of  a  Headline  of  one  of  our 
Morning  Dailies,  it  is 

''A  CRUCIAL  ANALTSIS 


AND  MASTERLT  REFUTATION 


OF  THE  GEORGE  DOCTRINEr 


It  appeals  to  the  thinking  mind  in  every  condition 
of  life,  but,  owing  to  its  clearness  of  diction  and  simple 
strength  of  expression,  in  a  particular  manner  appeals 
to  the  mind  of  the 

LABORER  AND  MECHANIC, 

No  One  Can  Fail  to  Follow  and  Understand 
THE  Argument. 

In  behalf  of  the  best  interests  of  our  laboring 
people   who    are    now    in    the    throes  of  a  social 


revolution,  kindlv  lend  your  assistance  in  their  arriving 
at  a  correct  knowledge  of  their  true  position. 
Respectfully  vours, 

ST.  XAVIER  CONFERENCE. 

In  ordering  a  single  copy  enclose  a  two-cent 
stamp  for  postage.  A  liberal  discount  will  be  allowed 
the  trade.  Address 

ST.  XAVIER  CONFERENCE, 

P.  O.  Box  107.  Cincinnati,  O. 


